d23:cig-mkr: The guys should have been disciplined for only being stupid. Piss on a deceased enemy combatant, but never, ever let someone video it.I'm sure the Taliban don't treat our fallen with respect and dignity.

WHO GIVES A shiat WHAT THE TALIBAN DOES?

Keep YOUR OWN house clean! We're supposed to be *better* than they are!

I give a shiat what the Taliban does, strapping bombs on children (never themselves), the woman who was raped is at fault, the little girl shot because she wanted an education, a hand cut off so the person has to eat with the hand he wipes his ass with, or even the guy killed because he drew a picture, how about a vow to kill all Christian people. These people are animals and we will never win their "hearts and minds". Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.The guys that were pissed on were in a fight (ambush) to try and kill our guys. I'm sure their emotions were running high at the time.This area was at one time the Cradle of Civilization, and look at them now. All because the Taliban wants control and go back to the radical basics./ one guys 2 cents worth.

This was handled with an article 15 non-judicial punishment, gut lost a stripe and some pay, nothing more. This "dishonorable discharge" in the headline was from the marine's bladder, not life ruining. He is still going to retire after 20 to 25 with a full pension. He might just end up being an E-7 instead of an E-8. It didn't really even hurt his career as a guy who pisses on dead people probably isn't going to be getting master gunnery sgt. or Sargent Major of the Marine Corp.

I remember one nice little slice of the world I was deployed to and had a local ask me if it was true that I had to kill one of my parents or siblings to join the Marine Corps. I of course answered yes, tis better to have people of the world think we are a bunch of crazed maniac killers then some soft loving kumbaya tards. I mean really, who would you rather fight, some weak hippie or some dude that offed his mother just for the chance to go to a foreign nation and lay some rounds down range at your noggin.

THIS. I was in a similar place, asked the same question by a local about my beret (I was AF Law Enforcement) if it was true I had to kill a family member to earn my beret. I said yes, it was my brother, and I missed him but that was the way of the world. (I never even had a brother.) I agree, better to look like hard-assed, cold killers than weak, namby-pamby tourists.

Speaking as a taxpayer, I'd rather the money that went into his prosecution go into buying someone another piece of armor.I strongly object to Marines who do bad things to foreign civilians; bad things to dead enemy, meh.

xkillyourfacex:We keep discharging guys like that and that's why we're losing the war. We don't need compassionate bleeding hearts in our military. We need killers. That's how wars are won. Discharging him because the ENEMY detests his actions... wtf? Does the enemy object to being blown to pieces by our artillery? Haven't most nations concluded our very involvement with the Taliban has become objectionable? So we end this guy's career over some PC bickering?

Your jib...I like the cut of it. I was going to post. "The next time we sit around and discuss why the US hasnt won a war in over 50 years...we need to bring this up."

Anyone who thinks that pissing on a dead body is okay, regardless the context of the madness of war, is typically a sideline military cheerleader. One of those types who has a huge hard-on for bullets and bombs but never had the balls to join themselves.

The conversation that goes on within the military is uniformly condemning of this stupid, criminal act. It makes the Marine Corps and America look bad, and it inhibits mission accomplishment. He and these Marines actually helped the enemy by doing this. Those enemy were already dead, already out of the fight. Instead of having mission accomplishment with dead enemy on the ground, these Marines turned it into a political victory for the enemy.

Abuse of corpses is a violation of the law by which all service memebers agree to abide. And ultimately it is an immoral, disgusting act, no matter when and no matter where.

Because it does our cause so much good to give the terrorist recruiters another reason to use to convince potential jihadists to join their cause. As long as idiots keep doing this crap they'll keep finding new recruits and these wars will never end.

Desecrating a corpse is against US military law (and I think Geneva conventions). I'd presume urinating on a corpse would come under the definition of desecration. Even if it isn't covered, it is morally repugnant and only has only served to increase hatred for those who are in active service amongst the locals putting the decent soldiers out there in a more hostile environment and giving Al Qaeda propagandists another tool for recruiting more fighters. These soldiers are a stain on the military and I find the support they get here unbelievable...

ko_kyi:PR stupidity, but I'd bet a few bucks that this has been done in EVERY significant war by someone on every side. Eugene Sledge says in "With the Old Breed" that his lieutenant always sought out a Japanese corpse to pee on if possible.

Sure, it's pretty gross but a hell of a lot less offensive than beating girls who want to go to school, or murdering their teacher.

To be honest, it is more offensive. The people who fight against women working truly believe that it is better for women to not work and be uneducated.

Urinating on a corpse expresses that you don't even view the deceased as a human being on even the most basic levels.

dropdfun:I remember one nice little slice of the world I was deployed to and had a local ask me if it was true that I had to kill one of my parents or siblings to join the Marine Corps. I of course answered yes, tis better to have people of the world think we are a bunch of crazed maniac killers then some soft loving kumbaya tards. I mean really, who would you rather fight, some weak hippie or some dude that offed his mother just for the chance to go to a foreign nation and lay some rounds down range at your noggin.

I'd rather them believe us to be educated, intelligent, honorable, and willing to stand up for our beliefs even when those beliefs require us to travel the more difficult path.

Huck And Molly Ziegler:Speaking as a taxpayer, I'd rather the money that went into his prosecution go into buying someone another piece of armor.I strongly object to Marines who do bad things to foreign civilians; bad things to dead enemy, meh.

If you prevent someone from joining the enemy at all, that's worth a hell of a lot more than another piece of armor.

If even 10 people joined the Taliban due to this idiot's behavior, that's gonna cost us a hell of a lot more than the trial and an armored hmmwv combined.

kim jong-un:To be honest, it is more offensive. The people who fight against women working truly believe that it is better for women to not work and be uneducated.

I think we each mean something different by "offensive." Whether someone "truly believes" something doesn't make it less wrong. No doubt Pol Pot "truly believed" that a fourth of all Cambodians deserved starvation and murder.

ko_kyi:kim jong-un: To be honest, it is more offensive. The people who fight against women working truly believe that it is better for women to not work and be uneducated.

I think we each mean something different by "offensive." Whether someone "truly believes" something doesn't make it less wrong. No doubt Pol Pot "truly believed" that a fourth of all Cambodians deserved starvation and murder.

To you and I, it is offensive. We believe that using violence to force women to be subordinate as anathema in our culture. However, you only believe that because you, through pure luck, were in a situation to develop that belief. It required a combination of education, culture, intelligence, and reasoning to come to the understanding as to WHY that is a 'bad thing'. You were able to develop that understanding and you and I agree that the subjugation of women is immoral. What if, by pure luck, you were raised in a culture which did not even allow you to develop that belief? If all your upbringing, education, and information available to you taught you to believe that the subjugation of women is not only positive, but essential, if you did NOT engage in the subjugation, in your own mind, you would be behaving in an immoral manner.

Remember, I'm considering the actions of two individuals. I do, of course, believe that the culture/societies which produce the fundamentalists to be destructive to the progress of mankind and I'd like to see that changed. However, I can't find the logical byproducts of those societies to be more 'offensive' when that's what those societies are inevitably going to produce. Our culture should not be producing people who engage in behavior like this marine, and therefore I find his actions to be more offensive since he knew it to be immoral.

This is not the behavior of disciplined soldiers. Putting aside any notions of morality, etc., what these soldiers did endangered the lives of their fellow soldiers and Americans around the world. That he wasn't drummed out of the corps in disgrace is an insult to soldiers who do maintain discipline, even on the battlefield.

kim jong-un:To you and I, it is offensive. We believe that using violence to force women to be subordinate as anathema in our culture. However, you only believe that because you, through pure luck, were in a situation to develop that belief. It required a combination of education, culture, intelligence, and reasoning to come to the understanding as to WHY that is a 'bad thing'. You were able to develop that understanding and you and I agree that the subjugation of women is immoral. What if, by pure luck, you were raised in a culture which did not even allow you to develop that belief? If all your upbringing, education, and information available to you taught you to believe that the subjugation of women is not only positive, but essential, if you did NOT engage in the subjugation, in your own mind, you would be behaving in an immoral manner.

Remember, I'm considering the actions of two individuals. I do, of course, believe that the culture/societies which produce the fundamentalists to be destructive to the progress of mankind and I'd like to see that changed. However, I can't find the logical byproducts of those societies to be more 'offensive' when that's what those societies are inevitably going to produce. Our culture should not be producing people who engage in behavior like this marine, and therefore I find his actions to be more offensive since he knew it to be immoral.

That is a very well-written response, and one that moves you from "potential ignore" to "favorite."

Whether I agree or disagree, you certainly elevate the discourse on FARK.

Bigdogdaddy:If the guy'd had a Quaran in his hand, he might have gotten a $750 fine.

I think it's stupid, but don't really care. I'm sure they would do much worse to our corpses if they had the chance, like drag them through the street in front of the cameras.

Is that supposed to give our people carte blanche to do likewise?Moral superiority (we're supposed to be "the good guys") comes with a certain set of rules.You act like the enemy, you are the enemy. The moral high ground, you no longer have it.